MENDEZ
v.
FONDA EL CRIOLLITO RESTAURANT LLC
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement because it had not retained jurisdiction prior to dismissal and the settlement terms were not incorporated into the dismissal order.
Plaintiff and defendants settled a Fair Labor Standards Act case, and the court dismissed the case with prejudice. Plaintiff now seeks to compel defen…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Retention Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment and for an Award of Attorney’s Fees, or in the Alternative, for an Order Compelling Defendants to Comply with the Terms of the Settlement Agreement Entered into by the Parties (the “Motion”) (Doc. 27), filed January 11, 2023. Defendants have not responded to the Motion. On December 22, 2022, the presiding District Judge entered an order approving the parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement and Dismissal with Prejudice in this Fair Labor Standards Act case, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201–219. (Doc. 26.) In that Order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice and closed the case. (Id.) Now, Plaintiff states that Defendants have failed to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement and seeks an order compelling “Defendants to perform [their] obligations under the aforementioned Settlement Agreement approved by this Court.” (Doc. 27 at 1.) As an initial matter, the Court questions whether it has subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, as requested by Plaintiff. Federal courts have “an independent obligation” in every case “to determine whether subject-
matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). The Supreme Court has held that the enforcement of a settlement agreement requires its own basis for federal jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 378 (1994). Pursuant to Kokkonen, the Eleventh Circuit has stated that in order for a court to have jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement following the dismissal of a case, the court must either: 1) issue an order retaining jurisdiction prior to the case being dismissed, or 2) the parties must have conditioned their stipulation of dismissal on the entry of an order retaining jurisdiction, and the Court must incorporate the terms of the settlement into the order dismissing the case. Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F. 3d 1272, 1278–79 (11th Cir. 2012). Neither situation appears to have occurred here, and Plaintiff’s Motion fails to otherwise address the source of the Court’s jurisdiction in light of Kokkonen and Anago. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment and for an Award of Attorney’s Fees, or in the Alternative, for an Order Compelling Defendants to Comply with the Terms of the Settlement Agreement Entered into by the Parties (Doc. 27) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Plaintiff wishes to refile the Motion, Plaintiff should provide briefing on the source of the Court’s jurisdiction. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on February 10, 2023.
A [...] KIDD